2021-22 NBA Season Discussion

[Jaivl]

none of them isolate impact nearly as well as they purport. Not sure why they continue to be relied upon so heavily especially in small samples. Especially when sometimes we don't rely on them at all if they give us numbers that don't fit what we've already decided.

I don't understand why we can't accept there is no single-metric available to tell us how good a basketball player is or isn't. That we have to work harder, and look beyond just someone's attempt at an all-in-one metric. Nothing against the creators of those who I'm sure all all brilliant stats guys doing their best, but its too dynamic and the samples sizes with the same people on the court are just way too small for us to say yep, this guy is the best or even yep this guy is the best in his role.

And if its really is as simple as just who has the best +/- then we should just shut this subforum down, because you can just look at the numbers and the job is done for you.

I’m actually curious, what’s the justification for RAPM being more descriptive than other ones and for it being super descriptive in general?

I don’t think using all in one metrics alone is ever a full enough argument, you have to justify a why it’s like that and if you can’t or the reasoning is absurd then it isn’t a good argument

On predictive vs descriptive, if anything I’d think something that can predict impact for the next year would probably be more accurate at measuring what’s going on this year, or eliminating “noise”

But i agree that some takes with only impact data backing it up can be kinda crazy. Even if it does measure “impact”there are so many variables that can go into that as well that players don’t necessarily effect

Esp in the playoffs people obsess way too much over minute differences in teams SRS accross years because of a correlation between it and winning which should be obvious

When building a predictive model, what you're looking for is maximizing the accuracy of your predictions. Think about BPM 1.0 and its infamous rebound%*assist% multiplier. If it somehow improves prediction, it goes in, doesn't really matter if it makes that much sense as long as you can justify it somehow.

RAPM is pure impact, point differencial + maths, nothing more, nothing less (of course the math behind makes the actual numbers not that reliable, you can't really compare 1 to 1 between seasons, etc, but it is an estimation of impact ONLY).

[Outside]

There's a report that Luka is sick.

"I hear he’s sick today,” Harlan told KNBR’s Greg Papa and John Lund on Thursday. “I guess he was up most of the night and ill. I’ve heard it now from two different people, so I’m assuming it’s probably true.”

https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/warriors/luka-doncic-was-sick-after-warriors-mavericks-game-1-kevin-harlan-says

If true, that's a shame. I'm a Warriors fan, but I want them to beat everyone at their best. I sure hope it's not COVID. Again, this is just one report based on second-hand info, and I want to see additional confirmation before considering it true.

[70sFan]

You have to admire what Celtics do on defensive end, but I hate watching their offense. It's basically "Tatum/Brown dribble the ball in iso after iso and try to find a shooter or make contested jumper". Celtics offense lives and dies with three point shooting, fortunately for them they are also amazing on defense.

I hope Miami bounce back after this loss, Butler still played great and was probably the best player on the court.

[70sFan]

Read on Twitter

Sharman did a nice breakdown of oldschool players shooting without going for "we were better back then".

Also, Cousy responded to Redick's ridiculous comments about him. He did it with class.

[WestGOAT]

By the way, for now in the playoffs:

Warriors offense vs Nuggets: +11.0 rORtg
Warriors defense vs Nuggets: -4.5 rDRtg

Warriors offense vs Grizzlies: +0.8 rORtg
Warriors defense vs Grizzlies: -5.4 rDRtg

We have to wait for the rest of the WCF to draw a clearer conclusion. For now, Warriors offense destroyed Nuggets but was underwhelming vs Memphis. Defense has been consistent so far, which is nothing new when we look at 2015-19 Warriors.

Minor note, last I checked the Warriors were +0.2 rDRtg against the Nuggets (Nuggets 114.5 RS ORtg, against GSW: 114.7 PS ORtg), am I overlooking something?

So mixed/versatile performance so far from GSW depending on their match-up.

[70sFan]

By the way, for now in the playoffs:

Warriors offense vs Nuggets: +11.0 rORtg
Warriors defense vs Nuggets: -4.5 rDRtg

Warriors offense vs Grizzlies: +0.8 rORtg
Warriors defense vs Grizzlies: -5.4 rDRtg

We have to wait for the rest of the WCF to draw a clearer conclusion. For now, Warriors offense destroyed Nuggets but was underwhelming vs Memphis. Defense has been consistent so far, which is nothing new when we look at 2015-19 Warriors.

Minor note, last I checked the Warriors were +0.2 rDRtg against the Nuggets (Nuggets 114.5 RS ORtg, against GSW: 114.7 PS ORtg), am I overlooking something?

So mixed/versatile performance so far from GSW depending on their match-up.

Yeah, I got it wrong. Thanks for the correction!

[Jaivl]

My god, Cousy absolutely destroyed Redick, lol.

Read on Twitter

[itsxtray]

Read on Twitter

Sharman did a nice breakdown of oldschool players shooting without going for "we were better back then".

Also, Cousy responded to Redick's ridiculous comments about him. He did it with class.

I would buy that but we've seen the shooting form of a lot of players back then and it was not ideal to say the least, sounds like a bunch of excuses to me. I've played with balls with lumps in them growing up and they would go in every which direction when you bounced it, no way they played with balls like that especially when you actually watch old tape.

[itsxtray]

My god, Cousy absolutely destroyed Redick, lol.

Read on Twitter

Since people are up in arms about this how good is Cousy if he played today? Would he still make the hall of fame?

Mad dog was saying Cousy was better than Kyrie Irving that was the context of the discussion. He shouldn't have disrespected Cousy and his contemporaries but his point is still right imo.

[70sFan]

Read on Twitter

Sharman did a nice breakdown of oldschool players shooting without going for "we were better back then".

Also, Cousy responded to Redick's ridiculous comments about him. He did it with class.

I would buy that but we've seen the shooting form of a lot of players back then and it was not ideal to say the least, sounds like a bunch of excuses to me. I've played with balls with lumps in them growing up and they would go in every which direction when you bounced it, no way they played with balls like that especially when you actually watch old tape.

There are some early 1950s games on the tape that looks to prove that though, the ball certainly wasn't as nice as it is now.

About shooting form - players back then shot a lot of two-handed setshots and I don't think this technique is wrong, it's just harder to make separation from a defender out of that move.

[70sFan]

My god, Cousy absolutely destroyed Redick, lol.

Read on Twitter

Since people are up in arms about this how good is Cousy if he played today? Would he still make the hall of fame?

Mad dog was saying Cousy was better than Kyrie Irving that was the context of the discussion. He shouldn't have disrespected Cousy and his contemporaries but his point is still right imo.

Very tough to say, but his passing vision and ability were two things that definitely translates to any era. He wasn't completely unathletic either, he had a great coordination. Still, he wasn't big or super long, so I suppose he could struggle defensively in modern era. So does Trae Young though and he's still a fantastic player.

I don't think his point is right. Kyrie isn't as good as Cousy was relative to his peers and Cousy didn't play in amateur league like Redick implied. There are a lot of things Cousy could do on basketball court that I wouldn't say Kyrie can, so it's not like it's only era thing.

[itsxtray]

Read on Twitter

Sharman did a nice breakdown of oldschool players shooting without going for "we were better back then".

Also, Cousy responded to Redick's ridiculous comments about him. He did it with class.

I would buy that but we've seen the shooting form of a lot of players back then and it was not ideal to say the least, sounds like a bunch of excuses to me. I've played with balls with lumps in them growing up and they would go in every which direction when you bounced it, no way they played with balls like that especially when you actually watch old tape.

There are some early 1950s games on the tape that looks to prove that though, the ball certainly wasn't as nice as it is now.

About shooting form - players back then shot a lot of two-handed setshots and I don't think this technique is wrong, it's just harder to make separation from a defender out of that move.

It's not ideal, not saying some people can't shoot well like that (Larry Bird) but you wan't your off hand to guide the ball and to release with your dominant hand while the ball comes off your middle/index fingers while keeping your elbows tucked. That's how i was taught and how i learned from downloading a Ray Allen shooting video off Limewire in like 2006 when i was a kid.

[70sFan]

I would buy that but we've seen the shooting form of a lot of players back then and it was not ideal to say the least, sounds like a bunch of excuses to me. I've played with balls with lumps in them growing up and they would go in every which direction when you bounced it, no way they played with balls like that especially when you actually watch old tape.

There are some early 1950s games on the tape that looks to prove that though, the ball certainly wasn't as nice as it is now.

About shooting form - players back then shot a lot of two-handed setshots and I don't think this technique is wrong, it's just harder to make separation from a defender out of that move.

It's not ideal, not saying some people can't shoot well like that (Larry Bird) but you wan't your off hand to guide the ball and to release with your dominant hand while the ball comes off your middle/index fingers while keeping your elbows tucked. That's how i was taught and how i learned from downloading a Ray Allen shooting video off Limewire in like 2006 when i was a kid.

I don't think it's clear that this form is better for efficiency than two handed setshots. The biggest difference is that you can make such jumpshots in more varied way, you can't shoot two-handed setshots contested.

[itsxtray]

My god, Cousy absolutely destroyed Redick, lol.

Read on Twitter

Since people are up in arms about this how good is Cousy if he played today? Would he still make the hall of fame?

Mad dog was saying Cousy was better than Kyrie Irving that was the context of the discussion. He shouldn't have disrespected Cousy and his contemporaries but his point is still right imo.

Very tough to say, but his passing vision and ability were two things that definitely translates to any era. He wasn't completely unathletic either, he had a great coordination. Still, he wasn't big or super long, so I suppose he could struggle defensively in modern era. So does Trae Young though and he's still a fantastic player.

I don't think his point is right. Kyrie isn't as good as Cousy was relative to his peers and Cousy didn't play in amateur league like Redick implied. There are a lot of things Cousy could do on basketball court that I wouldn't say Kyrie can, so it's not like it's only era thing.

Trae young has elite shooting on Cousy which opens up his game, unless you just wan't to grant Cousy that in this era his passing alone wouldn't be enough to get him on the court. How good is Trae Young shooting .375 from the field instead of .460?

Cousy wouldn't be able to get on the court to do those things better than Kyrie. He's getting hunted on defense and his shooting isn't good enough to justify playing him on offense, especially as a lead guard w/out elite athleticism.

[70sFan]

Since people are up in arms about this how good is Cousy if he played today? Would he still make the hall of fame?

Mad dog was saying Cousy was better than Kyrie Irving that was the context of the discussion. He shouldn't have disrespected Cousy and his contemporaries but his point is still right imo.

Very tough to say, but his passing vision and ability were two things that definitely translates to any era. He wasn't completely unathletic either, he had a great coordination. Still, he wasn't big or super long, so I suppose he could struggle defensively in modern era. So does Trae Young though and he's still a fantastic player.

I don't think his point is right. Kyrie isn't as good as Cousy was relative to his peers and Cousy didn't play in amateur league like Redick implied. There are a lot of things Cousy could do on basketball court that I wouldn't say Kyrie can, so it's not like it's only era thing.

Trae young has elite shooting on Cousy which opens up his game, unless you just wan't to grant Cousy that in this era his passing alone wouldn't be enough to get him on the court. How good is Trae Young shooting .375 from the field instead of .460?

Cousy wouldn't be able to get on the court to do those things better than Kyrie. He's getting hunted on defense and his shooting isn't good enough to justify playing him on offense, especially as a lead guard w/out elite athleticism.

Although certainly not Trae, I think Cousy's shooting touch was more than fine. He was 80% FT shooter throughout his career and he had three point range on his shots. His low FG% was mostly related to his shooting selection, as he took a lot of poor shots like 20 feet one legged floaters Another thing is that back then guards had far less space to operate and limited ball-handling rules prevented them from getting clear separation from defenders. It was incredibly hard to be ball-dominant guard in the 1950s and 1960s without big size advantage. I think with a few years of adjustments, his shooting would be fine.

I don't think Cousy would be a worse defender than Kyrie. He was a lot like Curry in that he read the game well and had a nose for steals. He was around the same size as Kyrie and Curry as well (though Curry has considerably more muscles on his frame).

Again, with a few years of adjustments I can see him being a very good player today.

[MyUniBroDavis]

none of them isolate impact nearly as well as they purport. Not sure why they continue to be relied upon so heavily especially in small samples. Especially when sometimes we don't rely on them at all if they give us numbers that don't fit what we've already decided.

I don't understand why we can't accept there is no single-metric available to tell us how good a basketball player is or isn't. That we have to work harder, and look beyond just someone's attempt at an all-in-one metric. Nothing against the creators of those who I'm sure all all brilliant stats guys doing their best, but its too dynamic and the samples sizes with the same people on the court are just way too small for us to say yep, this guy is the best or even yep this guy is the best in his role.

And if its really is as simple as just who has the best +/- then we should just shut this subforum down, because you can just look at the numbers and the job is done for you.

I’m actually curious, what’s the justification for RAPM being more descriptive than other ones and for it being super descriptive in general?

I don’t think using all in one metrics alone is ever a full enough argument, you have to justify a why it’s like that and if you can’t or the reasoning is absurd then it isn’t a good argument

On predictive vs descriptive, if anything I’d think something that can predict impact for the next year would probably be more accurate at measuring what’s going on this year, or eliminating “noise”

But i agree that some takes with only impact data backing it up can be kinda crazy. Even if it does measure “impact”there are so many variables that can go into that as well that players don’t necessarily effect

Esp in the playoffs people obsess way too much over minute differences in teams SRS accross years because of a correlation between it and winning which should be obvious

When building a predictive model, what you're looking for is maximizing the accuracy of your predictions. Think about BPM 1.0 and its infamous rebound%*assist% multiplier. If it somehow improves prediction, it goes in, doesn't really matter if it makes that much sense as long as you can justify it somehow.

RAPM is pure impact, point differencial + maths, nothing more, nothing less (of course the math behind makes the actual numbers not that reliable, you can't really compare 1 to 1 between seasons, etc, but it is an estimation of impact ONLY).

Oh, I know like the differences between the two, but if the all in one stats are more predictive, wouldn’t the conclusion that their a more accurate representation of impact be valid? I don’t really know how you would test for impact retroactively since it’s getting data from the result

If RAPM is point differential + maths, a lot of the all in one metrics are point differential + maths + X, and I don’t see why X takes away from that, even if it’s reducing noise

Luck adjusted RAPM for example, as a whole would probably be a more accurate measurement of a players impact while taking out noise than raw RAPM (in the sense that it controls for extraneous factors that aren’t in the players control)

I do understand that luck adjusted rapm by definition would be a worse measurement of the actual impact, but wouldn’t it be more valuable in the sense that it takes away noise and is more accurate to level of play?

I’m also still curious on how rapm is tested in terms of impact, I remember I saw a post by D-nice about him being doubtful about rapm but I was too youbt to understand most of it, although I’d prolly be able to get it if I saw it now

This isn’t me saying that I think rapm is bad or anything, I just literally don’t know how it became tested for being an accurate measure of impact (not don’t know as in “why is this dumb thing happening” I’m just ignorant to it)

[itsxtray]

Very tough to say, but his passing vision and ability were two things that definitely translates to any era. He wasn't completely unathletic either, he had a great coordination. Still, he wasn't big or super long, so I suppose he could struggle defensively in modern era. So does Trae Young though and he's still a fantastic player.

I don't think his point is right. Kyrie isn't as good as Cousy was relative to his peers and Cousy didn't play in amateur league like Redick implied. There are a lot of things Cousy could do on basketball court that I wouldn't say Kyrie can, so it's not like it's only era thing.

Trae young has elite shooting on Cousy which opens up his game, unless you just wan't to grant Cousy that in this era his passing alone wouldn't be enough to get him on the court. How good is Trae Young shooting .375 from the field instead of .460?

Cousy wouldn't be able to get on the court to do those things better than Kyrie. He's getting hunted on defense and his shooting isn't good enough to justify playing him on offense, especially as a lead guard w/out elite athleticism.

Although certainly not Trae, I think Cousy's shooting touch was more than fine. He was 80% FT shooter throughout his career and he had three point range on his shots. His low FG% was mostly related to his shooting selection, as he took a lot of poor shots like 20 feet one legged floaters Another thing is that back then guards had far less space to operate and limited ball-handling rules prevented them from getting clear separation from defenders. It was incredibly hard to be ball-dominant guard in the 1950s and 1960s without big size advantage. I think with a few years of adjustments, his shooting would be fine.

I don't think Cousy would be a worse defender than Kyrie. He was a lot like Curry in that he read the game well and had a nose for steals. He was around the same size as Kyrie and Curry as well (though Curry has considerably more muscles on his frame).

Again, with a few years of adjustments I can see him being a very good player today.

Yeah this where we differ. Being an 80% ft shooter doesn't guarantee high % outside shooting, those players are usually closer to 90% Steph, Nash, Ray Allen, Reggie Miller, with Klay being the lowest of this group at 85%... it's not impossible but im not betting on it.

You say he had 3pt range on his set shot like he was hitting it at league avg 36% or something. Considering his career avg was .375% imma say that that shot was much worse percentage wise. Also, he shot that percentage while shooting a set shot which is much eaiser than off the dribble or movement shots off actions. We have no idea if he'd be good at either of those.

For example: Danny Green is a set shooter who is mediocre off the dribble or off movement. Steph is elite at all of it while your Harden's and Lebron's are better off the dribble than catching and shooting and are non existent off movement. Granting Cousy all of that b/c he was an 80% ft shooter is a bridge too far for me.

[70sFan]

Trae young has elite shooting on Cousy which opens up his game, unless you just wan't to grant Cousy that in this era his passing alone wouldn't be enough to get him on the court. How good is Trae Young shooting .375 from the field instead of .460?

Cousy wouldn't be able to get on the court to do those things better than Kyrie. He's getting hunted on defense and his shooting isn't good enough to justify playing him on offense, especially as a lead guard w/out elite athleticism.

Although certainly not Trae, I think Cousy's shooting touch was more than fine. He was 80% FT shooter throughout his career and he had three point range on his shots. His low FG% was mostly related to his shooting selection, as he took a lot of poor shots like 20 feet one legged floaters Another thing is that back then guards had far less space to operate and limited ball-handling rules prevented them from getting clear separation from defenders. It was incredibly hard to be ball-dominant guard in the 1950s and 1960s without big size advantage. I think with a few years of adjustments, his shooting would be fine.

I don't think Cousy would be a worse defender than Kyrie. He was a lot like Curry in that he read the game well and had a nose for steals. He was around the same size as Kyrie and Curry as well (though Curry has considerably more muscles on his frame).

Again, with a few years of adjustments I can see him being a very good player today.

Yeah this where we differ. Being an 80% ft shooter doesn't guarantee high % outside shooting, those players are usually closer to 90% Steph, Nash, Ray Allen, Reggie Miller, with Klay being the lowest of this group at 85%... it's not impossible but im not betting on it.

You say he had 3pt range on his set shot like he was hitting it at league avg 36% or something. Considering his career avg was .375% imma say that that shot was much worse percentage wise. Also, he shot that percentage while shooting a set shot which is much eaiser than off the dribble or movement shots off actions. We have no idea if he'd be good at either of those.

For example: Danny Green is a set shooter who is mediocre off the dribble or off movement. Steph is elite at all of it while your Harden's and Lebron's are better off the dribble than catching and shooting and are non existent off movement. Granting Cousy all of that b/c he was an 80% ft shooter is a bridge too far for me.

I think you got the wrong message from my post, because I never implied that Cousy would be as good of a shooter as Steph, Nash, Allen or Reggie. I just said that he wasn't a poor shooter, nothing more or less.

Cousy was different than most 1950s players, he took a lot of long ranged off-dribble shots, including some silly looking one legged jumpshots from three point range. He also took a lot of sweeping hooks from midrange, which also reduced his efficiency.

Here is my short Cousy reel that shows how tough shots he took on consistent basis:

Watch on YouTube

It's not available on public anymore, because I got copyrights claims.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Very tough to say, but his passing vision and ability were two things that definitely translates to any era. He wasn't completely unathletic either, he had a great coordination. Still, he wasn't big or super long, so I suppose he could struggle defensively in modern era. So does Trae Young though and he's still a fantastic player.

I don't think his point is right. Kyrie isn't as good as Cousy was relative to his peers and Cousy didn't play in amateur league like Redick implied. There are a lot of things Cousy could do on basketball court that I wouldn't say Kyrie can, so it's not like it's only era thing.

Trae young has elite shooting on Cousy which opens up his game, unless you just wan't to grant Cousy that in this era his passing alone wouldn't be enough to get him on the court. How good is Trae Young shooting .375 from the field instead of .460?

Cousy wouldn't be able to get on the court to do those things better than Kyrie. He's getting hunted on defense and his shooting isn't good enough to justify playing him on offense, especially as a lead guard w/out elite athleticism.

Although certainly not Trae, I think Cousy's shooting touch was more than fine. He was 80% FT shooter throughout his career and he had three point range on his shots. His low FG% was mostly related to his shooting selection, as he took a lot of poor shots like 20 feet one legged floaters Another thing is that back then guards had far less space to operate and limited ball-handling rules prevented them from getting clear separation from defenders. It was incredibly hard to be ball-dominant guard in the 1950s and 1960s without big size advantage. I think with a few years of adjustments, his shooting would be fine.

I don't think Cousy would be a worse defender than Kyrie. He was a lot like Curry in that he read the game well and had a nose for steals. He was around the same size as Kyrie and Curry as well (though Curry has considerably more muscles on his frame).

Again, with a few years of adjustments I can see him being a very good player today.

I can’t pretend to know much about Cousy and I know we’re in disagreement on a lot of stuff in terms of how older players would translate, If all of their forms are different (the two handed set shots) I definately struggle to see how they’d adjust to shooting threes now if they have to reinvent their form to that extent, considering even players now usually struggle to change if the shooting difference is moving their set point a bit

I know ft shooting and 3 point shooting have a correlation, but I do think it’s more so that 3 point shooting predicts ft shooting than the other way around

36/65 players who shot above 80% from the ft line shot above league average (35.4%) from three, whereas 55/65 who were in the top 65 of 3 point% (37.5%) shot above league average (77.5%) from the ft line

Before start of the late 2010s three point revolution (I’m counting it as 2015)
29/58 (I didn’t count people who barely shot threes) who shot above 80% shot above league average (35%) from three. Of the top 65 three point shooters in percentages, 6 shot below league average from the ft line

Essentially, I think that 3 point percentage is a good indicator of being good from the ft line, while the vise versa doesn’t necessarily hold as true, I think the justification of player X would probably be a good three point shooter because of their ft percentage isn’t necessarily a super justified claim.

This isn’t to say it isn’t a predictor but given all the other factors I don’t think it’s fair to say “time travel person X to today and he’ll get a good three in a year of training” given other factors working against that

Im not sure what percentage of players actually go from not having a three point shot or having a bad one, to having an off-season working on it and suddenly it being great too. There are obviously examples but you could argue any player that lacks 3pt shooting, and has a decent ft percentage or midrange shot, not becoming a good shooter is a counter example to that since you don’t really hear stories about “player X tried to learn to shoot over the summer but failed and now can’t”

If you make the argument if they were born here and worked on threes throughout their basketball lives, like most players on these two lists had, then I would see that argument but then I feel we disagree on how “hypothetical” we can go there, and I think both views are valid there

This isn’t a Cousy thing specifically, we disagree so much on how players would be transported today in a setting m (like, if you see that bleacher report series portal, I think we would have different picks if you put players here and there), but I do think the assumption that a lot of these players would easily learn to shoot threes in a year or two is unrealistic. Not to say players haven’t added a three point shot to their arsenal before, but i think it’s far more difficult that is said

On set shots vs jump shots, you can generally generate more power off of jump shots too, I’d assume you get less tired since a set shot does Lowkey take more effort because you have to force it up more vs it being carried through momentum, and are less effected by contests

[eminence]

I'd lean towards Cousy likely still winds up in the Hall had he come up today, got overappreciated a bit in his own time, so unlikely to match his own accolades, but he should still be quite good. There's a fair comp to be made with Trae (worse shooter, better defender the main notables). Cousy's a guy who can score at decent volume at slightly above league average efficiency while leading the league in assists, likely a bit high in the tov department.

He wasn't a complete set-shooter, so I don't have too many concerns about him developing a serviceable jumper (if Fox can make it as a starter in the league, so can Cousy).